I received a note through the school mail that said: “Here’s an article I know you will find interesting, but I think I know what you would say about it.” The note was from a speech-language pathologist and was attached to Shapiro’s (1992) article, “Debatable Issues Underlying Whole-Language Philosophy: A Speech-Language Pathologist’s Perspective.” In the article, Shapiro challenges what she calls fundamental assumptions of a whole-language philosophy: (a) that spoken language is directly comparable to written language and (b) that skilled readers rely on contextual information more than on the printed word. I assumed that the pathologist who sent the article expected me to defend whole language against Shapiro’s criticisms because I am a whole-language advocate. As I read the article, however, I found myself agreeing with Shapiro’s arguments against these assumptions and asking: “What would I say to speech-language pathologists who read this article?”